Slashdot Mirror
Court Upholds Internet Deregulation
Internet Voting writes "Big telecom companies seem to have won big with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding FCC's ruling deregulating the Internet. Opponents argued that telecoms could now deny third parties access to their telecommunications lines and eliminating competition. From the story: "In its September 2005 ruling, the FCC relieved telephone companies of decades-old regulations that required them to grant competing Internet service providers 'nondiscriminatory' access to their wirelines in order to reach consumers.""
"Hey, did you see that video on YouTube today?"
"No, I can't. My ISP doesn't support that part of the internet."
"Oh... that sucks... well, I can email you the video."
"From your Comcast address? No, that won't do. My hardware is not Comcast-enabled."
I can access Slashdot, I am hap NO CARRIER
This deregulation is a consumer's worst nightmare. We already have very limited competition in broadband service, and this promises to kill off what little there is.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
... don't give them your money. Humans survived the ice age, stone age etc without the internet why can't you?
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
I thought the internet was deregulated by nature, and that censorship is something that's simply routed around.
I'd think that website discrimination would work much the same way, although I could be wrong...
Just so long as there are more than two or three competing telecoms, I don't see much of a problem here. Hopefully, they will compete for the business of third-party ISPs. And I do not mean compete for their customers.
You want to deny everybody else access to the wires you laid on public easements, using grants, subsidies, and tax breaks given to you by the government? Fine. Pay all of the back leasing costs and taxes that were handed to you so you could establish your geo-monopolies everywhere. Sounds fair to me.
The essential problem is the tendency to accelerate the concentration of wealth. Owners can always find proxies to hide the influence of a media outlet. Small players can print any limited distribution screed they want, but it takes a major daily, or a cable channel or a decent powered radio or TV station to get the mass coverage, and those are all going to big corporate ownership. Of course, you don't have to watch, read, or listen, or, especially, believe.
Radio Shack will finally have an incentive to start a Universal Adapter ISP that'll bridge the various parts of the internet, which all use slightly-different-sized plugs to transmit data.
This is wonderful news! We can finally return to the exciting days of Prodigy, Compuserve, Delphi and AOL-esque walled-garden networks! No more pesky public websites that haven't paid their dues to the gatekeepers! Finally the network operators will have total control over their infrastructure that was built entirely with private funds with all lines running in under and above their own private land.
Can I start my telecom from my garage?
This "regulation" was a step toward making sure that companies could compete evenly and fairly, by limiting the power of a government-granted monopoly. How is allowing the monopoly to grow unabated and block competition equal to deregulation? It isn't.
If we changed the law so that banks didn't have to follow standard accounting practices, would that be "deregulation" or "a complete nightmare?" If we removed the requirements that food be edible and properly labeled, would that be "deregulation" too? How about we just eliminate the rule of law, and the constitution, and clear-up a whole lot of regulations?
Am I the only one who doesn't understand if this is good or bad?
...of Appeals ruling upholding FCC's ruling deregulating .... ruling ruling.. so what it means, it won't against this court, which means the ruling according FCC ruled deregulation is no longer rule... really, I'm confused.
"Big telecom companies seem to have won big with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding FCC's ruling deregulating the Internet."
Big telecom companies seems to have won - that's bad, i guess.
3rd
It's good or bad?
After RTFA, I think some may be a little confused as to what this means from just the summary. Some seem to be interpreting this as a blow to net neutrality. As I understand it, that is not the case. What this means is that the owners of the physical lines (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) now can make independent deals with ISPs that don't own the lines (Earthlink, Speakeasy, etc.) instead of having to let them all have access.
Where this is bad, as I see it, is that now AT&T can basically tell Earthlink that if they want to use their precious copper to bring the Intertubes to peoples homes, it will cost them eleventy billion dollars. So basically, it means AT&T gets to set the price for DSL to whatever they want, and no one else can really compete on price because AT&T can make the cost of use to the third party provider so high that they cannot compete on price. Anyone feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting something.
I support this ruling fully. It will enable the government and it's corporate partners to enhance their power and to socialize the internet. In a nation that is founded on socialism and tyranny (the two are inseparable) there must be full control of all media and this ruling will help pave the way for that to happen. Only the elites that run the government have rights and it is time for you people to realize this. You are here to serve the state so quit whining.
...of rolling blackouts? And can we expect another Enron-type extortion scandal?
In the end, the free market will win and the internet will stop being free. It's to be expected given that the same thing has already happened in meat space.
The only thing left to do is to buy stock in the telcos. That way, you can preserve your dignity by claiming that whereas everyone else is merely raped by the telcos, you are actually raping yourself.
It amazes me how the press gets sucked into the lingo. This is not at all a ruling in favor of deregulation. To the contrary, it is a ruling authorizing private regulation of the Internet. Moreover, private regulation in this space is much more dangerous than government regulation because it works. The government can't do much at all to regulate the Internet, thanks in large measure to the First Amendment and thanks in no small measure to the fact that the government does not have any physical control over the transport layer. But the major ISPs do have such control, and are not bound by the First Amendment. In short, this ruling says, in plain English, "Whereas the government may not and cannot regulate communications over the Internet that are protected from suppression by the First Amendment, we hereby free those of you who have the power to suppress freedom of speech to go ahead and do so."
Aire Libre
I don't agree with the ruling, but I don't see the situation as being as "dire" as some suggest. I can't see a major telco blocking access to certain websites or networks due to this "deregulation". If they do, they'll be creating new markets and new competition in which they would have to compete, and probably loose.
Lets say Verizon tries to make Google pay extra to keep the priority of traffic going to YouTube on par with other types of network traffic. Google can either payup, and keep their access, or, decide to go an alternative route, such as working with a different provider to get access to the end user, or build their own network that renders parts of Verizon's network useless. Small providers will collaborate to stay in competition with big ones. The same goes for fiber backbone, and "last mile" service. If they decide to start blocking, others will invest and build, and offer their service as an alternative to those that are blocked, or, overpriced.
Maybe I'm too optimistic on the situation, but, what else can we hope for?
Am I going to have to switch to SBC small business to keep my current level of connectivity?
I don't want them to pay back all the public funds they were give, or the tax breaks etc.
What I want is to know what percentage of their infrastructure was built with public funds and tax breaks and so on, if that is 45% then I want a 45% discount on my monthly bill.
For every site that I am unable to reach because of their deregulation, I want compensation on my monthly bill. For every censored email, I want compensation.
Don't tell me that your 'public internet access' I pay for will only access content you approve of. I will not buy a special car to drive on restricted roads. I will not pay for two services to access both Google and Yahoo. I will simply sue every time I am denied access based on their censorship. Yes, I realize that there may not be any basis for that in law, but we must do something to let them know what their consumers want.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Of course the big telcos don't want to roll out snazzy new broadband lines if they have to bear the cost of R&D and deployment, and then immediately allow competitors to use their brand new high-speed lines at the price the government insists on. I mean, their competitors can just lay new fiber optic lines themselves, right?
Oh, wait...the government created the whole mess in the first place with geographical monopolies on the right to run telephone lines, muddied the waters even more by declaring that cable companies are "information services" and thus don't have to share *their* lines, and now want to wash their hands of it and stand back and watch Joe Consumer take it up the ass.
On a *completely* unrelated note, I suggest that any group of politicians hereafter be called a clusterfuck. (e.g., A herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, a clusterfuck of politicians).
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I understand why a lot of you are upset over this, but at the same time see it from the company's perspective. They paid for the lines, the installation, the maintenance, etc... Then you have the government come in and say, "Well that's nice, but in the interest of "fairness" you need to let other companies who didn't drop a dime for the hardware use it...and take business away from you." That's like building a family business, then having the government tell you that you have to let a competing business use your facilities to compete against you.
But since we're talking about "big evil telecom" companies, no one gives a crap. You give them shit because they control the market, well yes they do...because they helped CREATE the market. This is business...there is no fair or unfair. If you don't like their service and can't get another one...you either do without or suck it up. You have no "right" to anything they produce.
In the large scheme to have the US economy locked into a grinding halt.
It may have taken them several decades, but the conservatives have finally succeeded in winning World War 2. They now have conquered Britian, and with GWB they have finally conquered America.
Bush/Cheney succeed where Hitler/Stalin failed.
Thank all the "values voters" and "fiscal conservatives" for selling us all out.
Where I live, Verizon doesn't offer me DSL. But Cavalier Telephone offers me DSL, over Verizon's lines. (My neighborhood is fairly poor, so Verizon probably thinks we aren't worth it). So does that mean that I won't be able to get DSL then? If that's the case, my only option is Comcast, who doesn't allow me to use Bittorrent. So now I will have only one choice for broadband internet. And it's a company that doesn't believe in neutrality.
Yay for deregulation!
Its easy to get up in arms about this decision, and start poo-pooing how its going to lead to less competition. But here's the reality of the matter.
In 2008 there will be an election in the US for President. A good chunk of Congress will also be up for grabs. And unless something really radical happens between now and then, in all likelihood the next President is going to be a Democrat, and the Democrats will hold a majority in both houses of Congress. This is what happens when a Republican President falls to a 24 percent approval rating in the polls (and Congress is doing only slightly better).
Democrats are generally pro-consumer and love regulating things (Republicans, on the other hand, are generally pro-business, and like to deregulate). The first time one of the big telecoms tries to openly block competition, the Dems will be on it like hair on a gorilla. And even the telecoms are smart enough to know that.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I wonder how much of these telecom giveaways, including this half-handed "deregulation" that will let telcos do to the rest of the Internet what they did to DSL competitors (ie. kill it), and the NSA spying immunity, are grabbed because telcos just have all kinds of evidence incriminating politicians fool enough to talk openly on their phones?
Such a power can never be broken. Not with the existing generation of crooked politicos, with no relief in the foreseeable future.
--
make install -not war
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SCEBLG0&show_article=1
This might be off-topic, but it seems relevant. It appears Comcast is blocking traffic.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Lots of folks don't understand either the net or it's potential.
Why should they want, need or get an open network?
The problem is, it's your LOCAL reps that could be doing the most good in this situation!
The telco's screw you on your local service. It's the wires to your house, your street, your neighborhood. It's not the big ass trunk-lines that connect your city to the next city.
If everyone leans on their city council reps, or their county council reps, or their mayor, and pushes for their city/county to make cable within their county/city a public utility, the telco's will be left with nothing. Lot of communities are looking for this already, because they want a better fibre rollout than the big companies are doing.
You want to yell at someone...Yell at someone who lives in your town, and can actually do something about your local situation. This stuff should be like your water/sewer utility, locally bought, locally paid for, and locally accountable. Hold AT&T accountable? No way! They could afford to piss off whole states more less your little town. But hold a local company accountable? One that has no customers outside your county? Hell yea.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
caturday
AYBABTU
IKISSYOU
dancing hamsters and dancing babies
etc.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"How is allowing the monopoly to grow unabated and block competition equal to deregulation?"
Are you really that stupid?
Before- regulations
Now- no regulations
It's really not hard.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
But never in New York.
It really saddens me that those agencies charged with upholding the public trust and regulating natural monopolies to prevent their abuse have actually been using their power to turn the United States into a technological backwater. It won't be long before third world countries have better technology infrastructure than we, and unfortunately, we the consumer will foot the bill.
Nothing like the Telcos getting rich as the US falls farther and farther behind, technologically speaking. Nothing like trashing your home country's economy for the sake of short term profit, eh?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
As a Democrat and loyal Slashdot user, I blame the Jew puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburtin
Instead he blows the heads off children in Iraq for his amusement.
Oh well, every dead soldier is one less Republican vote and one more victory for us Democrats
- Microsoft took a serious financial position in a Telco?
- vs. Google took a serious financial position in a major telco,
- that was in turn had content blocked by the M$ dominated telco...
Or ATT decided that all of it's copper bandwidth is not common carrier but IP traffic -- does it now have to carry my Comcast originated phone call to the ATT last mile with the same priority as ATT digital packets?Really, this could get crazy so one of two things realistically needs to happen. Either the FCC figures it out and comes up with effective regulation, Congress passes pro-consumer effective legislation, or -- most likely -- we end up with a big stinking mess for the next then years like the '96 telco act left behind which we are still dealing with now.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The 'deregulation' can serve as an opportunity for other connection mediums to emerge. In the face of great adversity emerges new tech (after years of patent litigation) like WiMax or BOPL or White Space whatever that can act in a similar fashion to the hardlines scattered across the country.
Unless the telecos also buy up all that spectrum and companies with new broadband patents and the like. Then we'll spend years in monopoly litigation and try to decide if one or 2 companies holding all the access keys really constitutes a monoploy or not and, if so, how to 'regulate' it... like it was years before we ended up at that point.
Try to think on the bright side with this announcement. We'll slowly right ourselves, just may take years to get back on track.
...with their new all-in-one combo search engine, email, usenet, maps, image and video storage, online office apps in a browser, medical records database and all the rest of that stuff accessible anywhere in the USA via their new 700MHz and 2.6GHz WiMax wireless connection service.... which I'm pretty sure they'll market under the name "Google Garden" or something like that.
--
Laugh... it's supposed to be funny
The Democrat are only pro-consumer in comparison to the Repubs. If you pay attention--ie turn off your TV--you'll find they are pretty much bought and paid for, with a few exceptions. It's true they're not as bad as the Republicans, in the same manner that Herpes isn't as bad as AIDS.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
...out of the DSL market here in my city. Back in 2004-2005 there was about a half dozen DSL ISPs doing business here, all enjoying the right to use SBC's local copper to the homes until the new FCC decision got handed down in late 2005 and all the independent DSL providers lost their market at the stroke of a pen. Now there are only two: SBC/ATT themselves and Covad. Covad is left because they are the only one who also qualifies as a "CLEC".
This is a green light for corporate regulation of the internet.
At least government regulation is, at some level, accountable by democratic process. Corporate regulation is not. (Wallet voting is not democratic.)
i just want to offset your profundity with some moribundity
those who speak of great utopias in the language of high minded intellectual achievement often get it wrong, throughout history. the internet was supposed to be this great philosopher's lounge of high minded thought and rhetoric and dmeocratic action. the truth is that most of it is a drunken barroom brawl at 3 am in the seedy side of london. trolls, flamewars, simple empty negativity: the basest of humanity given voice just as much as the best
consider this: when the television was invented, the minds of that age trumpeted the birth of a great tool for the education of mankind
pffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If we ask the government to shield us from all the pain of a free market, we'll never see any of the gains that a free market can motivate. Pain is motivation in a free market. Greed is motivation. The pain of lack of options and the greed of entrenched players are opportunity for alternative offerings. Wireless, satellite, mesh, broadband-over-power... technological alternatives are out there, some of which lead to a much freer, less centralized, more competitive Internet. The pain of the free market isn't a downside, it's a catalyst.
But with John "I never met a corporation I didn't like" Roberts at the helm, I am not hopeful.
And now I will predict the future: the state of U.S. broadband will continue to stagnate as the rest of the world moves to higher and higher speeds. Your monthly bill will now steadily rise, and your speeds will not. I don't know how much longer I will be able to hang onto my ISP now (Earthlink leases lines from Verizon, who owns almost all of the infrastructure under Manhattan) and I'm sure that when Verizon "takes" over my service, I will be offered the same speed at a higher rate.
And, fifteen years from now, when the deplorable state of American broadband access becomes an issue, some idiot will be claiming that the problem is still too much regulation and that what we need is one national broadband company, which will give you a nice, fast 768 Kbps line for only $150/month.
Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards, with a chewy, bastard filling.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
ISP's excuse: We don't support Linux, so there's no reason for enabling you to download it.
Something like this happened to me about a month ago, but not with Linux, it was with Mac OS X. Occasionally when I click on a link or type an addie in the address bar I'll wait and wait then get a message from my ISP, Earthlink, that it can't find the address. It last happened maybe 1/2 hour ago, I first clicked a link to Google and Earthlink said it couldn't find Google. I next type the url in the address bar and got the same message. When I called Earthlink tech support when it first happened I was told they didn't support Macs but that if I was willing to pay they could send a technician to fix it. The person wouldn't even try to diagnose the problem. If I hadn't been using Earthlink for almost 10 years and saved all my email on the server I'd be tempted to switch to an ISP that does support Macs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Verizon is not in charge of Gundam.
They presumably made a profit from the installation of the lines. It is the customers who paid for them. Further more most of the POTS lines were installed by our parents and the existing generation of Telco employees inherited them.
Furthermore if you look at the administrations of most Telcos you will find they are filled with non-productive people and paper pushers who sit around all day drinking coffee while they scheme more ways to suck book out of the customers they hold hostage. This is why we see telephone plan after plan after plan. This is why only a few years back we had horendous Long Distance rates. It is only through competition that we start to see the benefits of modern technology filter down to benefit the public. The thing is there is not enough competition.
IMHO the telco should be restricted to line maintenance and that is it. Its their job to maintain the wires just as it is the contractors job to maintain the hyways. Suppose the road maintanence crew were allowed to look inside the trailers of every semi... what would we get? Someone saying this truck is ok but that one isn't?
Basically this is what the telcos are up to.
Obviously you wouldn't get DSL through your cable company; you'd get cable Internet service.
Now that Telecommunications Carriers no longer have to allow anyone else (ie competitors) access to Telco Owned infrastructure.....
Perhaps all those billions and billions of miles of dark fibre infrastructure that Google has been buying for the past several years will be Put To Good Use.
But what will they call it?
- gNet?
- gWeb?
- gTubes?
- gSpace?
- gWorld?
- DataSphere?
- gSingularity?
Personally my vote is for calling it the Google Omniprescent Datasphere, which would only be all-too-appropriate.Because to us
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
It's good for those who were being regulated, it's bad for customers and taxpayers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
For years, the US political system has relied on this sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge attitude by the common voter. We can talk smack against the "libruls" and "political correctness" and express our devotion to the freewheeling marketplace, but in the back of our minds we take it for granted that, wink-wink-nudge-nudge, the courts will come and rescue us whenever the business tycoons we vote into power get too absurd in their obeisance to their own wallets. But surely, by now, after a generation of primarily right-wing judicial appointees, we see that the situation has changed. The courts are no longer the last bastion of liberal social policies. Nor should they be. Let's stop expecting the old men in robes to bail us out of the messes we are in. We are a nation of laws, and we owe it to ourselves and our descendants to have laws in place that express our true political will.
Of course, that means we actually have to pay attention to whom we elect into Congress, and to what they do once they're there. Even worse, we'll have to stop being hypocrites and realize that most of us actually want a life cocooned by taxes and regulation. Are we up to that?
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
slashdot told me i failed to prove i was human, but i usually get that bars and such, i don't think this is deregulation, just re-regulation. This hinders competition and gives consumers less or no choice at all. How long before the big guys just ban downloading totally? Or saying nasty things about them? I think this is only helpful if you are the company a.
George Bush is president No. George Bush's son, also named George Bush, is president. (The VP in 1987 was George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush.)
Before- regulations
Now- no regulations
It's really not hard. No regulations, eh? So why can't I just start a wireless ISP and beam signals? Why do I need the FCC's OK for that? And why do I need to get permission from every non-customer who lives between my central office and a customer to put cables under or their land, plus get permission from the city to put cables under or over city streets?
Normally I try to support local businesses but I signed up with Earthlink because I knew I was going to move, and I did. I moved from Florida to Minnesota which shares a border with Canada. By going with a national provider I was able to keep the same one and not have to change email or anything else.
The support is less than stoopid, they down right suck balls. I had 6 meg DSL from AT&T, and switched to Earthlink (Covad circuit) and they say I can only get 3 megs.
Until I got my MacBook Pro I didn't have any problems with Earthlink. I've only had to call for support 5 tymes in 10 years, 2 tymes was when I moved and another when I had dialup but the phone lines became too bad but I was able to get cable. Another tyme I was having trouble with access. The tech walked me through a few tests then decided my cable modem needed to be replaced. The following day a tech came by with the new modem and installed it. After running some tests he said I should have a faster connection, it looks to me like I do. I've never had a problem with any download limits or being online too much.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How long will it be before the phone company, and their physical infrastructure becomes irrelevant? Can the wireless networks now provided primarily for cell phones replace the copper wire that we are so dependent on any time soon? I sure hope so. I think the best thing that can happen in the long run, is for the phone company to shoot itself in the foot and generate enough interest to get themselves replaced. The sooner the better. Hopefully the power line companies see this de-regulation, and start using their infrastructure to bring internet access to homes. Then the phone company would have real competition. I hope. Then again, they could be like the clueless cable TV operators who seemed to be doing a real shitty job of it.
I watched a TV program the other night. It was an early 1960's version of what the future would bring. They showed handheld telephones (we have them), space flight to the moon (been there), instant food cooking (ala Microwave ovens), tiny refrigerator sized computers (we have more than they imagined) and of course, a telephone system with video. Every prediction came true, except the one the phone company has prevented. The technology has been there for decades, but there is no motivation for the monopolies to innovate. The entire world suffers stagnation as a result. Now, I'm not one to bash self made monopolies. I personally believe in some cases even though they are a monopoly they can be driven by market pressures to improve, but in the case of the phone company it has been an apathetic selfish government sponsored pig. I hope they die soon.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
I for one, as a veteran, refuse to let my country continue to slide towards socialism quietly. Doing something "for the public good" is an affront to everything the founding fathers put down in the Constitution. Who decides who the "public" is and what is "good" for them?
I too am a vet and I don't like when my government gives the telco companies millions of taxpayer dollars to build out, first the phone lines, then the broadband infrastructure and all they do is cry they can't afford to build it. It's fine to them, and to neocons, if they are given a lot of taxpayer money but they don't want to share. The government gives some aid to a person though and the neocons go apeshit.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Are you looking at the approval rating of Congress overall, or of individual congressmen among their constituents? The latter is routinely higher than the former.
This is led by the attitude many people have that their congressional delegation is good, it's all the others that are bad.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This decision came down in September, 2005. Has it been appealed in the TWO years since?
WE paid for those lines, NOT the telcos. WE paid through government grants to the telcos, through Tax breaks, through their free use of the public rights of way and through HUGE (over)charges until de-regulation was ordered back in the '80's. Now, YOU have no problem with things going back to the '70's? Has it come to your attention that this ruling allows telcos to block VOIP traffic? But you're okay with that because it's THEIR network, right? Did you see that AT&T is the newest company to sue Vonage for infringing on their (fair use stolen) patents? Why do you think they want to do this? BECAUSE THEY WANT TOTAL CONTROL BACK SO THEY CAN CHARGE US THROUGH THE NOSE AGAIN!!!! They WANT things back like they were in the '70's and earlier and with the help of the Republican controlled FCC they WILL GET THAT! Do you think it's coincidence that virtually EVERY anti-consumer FCC decision is 3-2? (hint: there are 3 Republican FCC Commissioners). But you WANT to pay 50 cents a minute for long distance calls...RIGHT??? You WANT to pay by the byte for Internet service...RIGHT??? That's alright with you-RIGHT???? Well, it ain't okay with me!!!
I haven't seen "time" spelled "tyme" (as opposed to "thyme") since some band name in the '60s. Thanks for the flashback :-)
I first came across the spelling of time as "tyme" when I was in high school in the late '70s. I was in the library reading the "Oxford English Dictionary", OED, when I came across it in volume 20 something. I don't know why but when I saw it I loved it and have used that spelling since. Actually within a week or so I used it in a paper for a writing class, composition, American Lit, or some such. When I got the paper back the teacher had taken points off for it as an incorrect spelling. I practically dragged her down to the library where I showed her that spelling in the dictionary, thereafter when I spelt a word she thought was incorrect she'd check the OED first.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's about time the net backbones moved away from the USA. With arbitrary filtering taking place in the US, there will be more pressure to route around the country. No doubt freenets and wifi sharing will also undergo a boost in America. Soon everyone will be poor and communist, and the country will be ruled by power-crazed hippies.